On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:47 PM, TJ <trej...@gmail.com> wrote: >>Why would anyone NOT want that?? what replaces that option in current RA >>deployments? > > One nit - I like to differentiate between the presence of RAs (which should > be every user where IPv6 is present) and the use of SLAAC (RA + prefix). >
Sure, but... RA is necessitated by the initial decision to use it and NOT support something akin to the bootp/dhcp sequence that v4 has. This could, it seems to me, be done... but since RA is there, it's not BAD to use it for prefix/default-route/ip-address it's just not anywhere near complete. > > Right now - Cheat off of IPv4's config. > (Lack of DHCPv6 client-side support, and lack of DNS v6 transport (WinXP), > necessitate this) agreed. -Chris
